PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA was adamant: His health-care overhaul would not put Americans on the road to British-style, government-run medicine. Speaking to the American Medical Association last June, the president dismissed as "scare tactics and fear-mongering" all talk of "socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors." A few weeks later he reiterated the message: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care."But if Obama is as firmly opposed to a government-ruled health sector as he claims, why has he nominated as administrator of Medicare and Medicaid -- far and away the nation's largest health-insurance programs, covering one out of every three Americans at a cost of nearly $1 trillion -- a man who openly adores Britain's socialized health care?

"I am romantic about the National Health Service," Dr. Donald Berwick, the president's pick for director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a British audience in 2008. "I love it." Not only does he love the NHS, he extols it as "an example for the whole world -- an example ... that the United States needs now."From all accounts, Berwick, a pediatrician, is respected by his peers. He is the founder of the Cambridge-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and an expert on making patient care safer and more efficient. Among his supporters are Bill Frist, a physician and former US Senate majority leader, and several previous directors of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.But if Berwick's credentials cannot be doubted, neither can his ideological commitment to centralized state power over health care, or his disdain for the ability of markets and competition to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical services.He has publicly saluted Britain's socialized National Health Service for rejecting the "immoral" American system and "the darkness of private enterprise." He declares that "the Holy Grail of universal coverage" cannot be achieved with consumer-centered health care, but only through "collective action overriding some individual self-interest."And he embraces health-care rationing. "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care," he said in a 2009 interview, "the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that "limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage." Accordingly, he praises the NHS for "making tough choices" about the care it administers -- unlike the American system, in which the supply of medical care is not artificially restricted. "Here, you choose a harder path," he said in Britain two years ago. "You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them."But those who have to live with the NHS and its "bottlenecks" don't always find them quite so admirable. For months, the British press has been reporting horror stories about the realities of government-run health care. Some recent headlines give a sense of the coverage:"Overstretched maternity units mean mothers face a 100-mile journey to have baby.""Hundreds of patients died needlessly at NHS hospital due to appalling care.""Cash-strapped NHS trust introduces rationing for common children's conditions."

"Standard of care in some wards 'would shame a third world country.'""Stafford Hospital caused 'unimaginable suffering.'"No one would deny that America's health care system is flawed in many ways. But when it comes to the standard that matters most -- the quality of health care provided -- our haphazard, expensive, insurance-based system towers above the NHS."In Britain 36 per cent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery," wrote journalist James Bartholomew in The Spectator. "In the US, a mere 5 per cent do." By one metric after another -- cancer survival rates, performance of diagnostic tests, availability of CT and MRI scanners, consultation with specialists -- US health care is superior. "British state-run healthcare," Bartholomew concluded, "is so amazingly, achingly, miserably, and mortally incompetent."That's the system that leaves Berwick feeling "romantic" -- the system he proclaims an "example" for the United States. And Obama wants him to run Medicare and Medicaid? Let us hope at least 51 senators say no.“IN LOVE WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINEBY JEFF JACOBYTHE BOSTON GLOBEJUNE 16, 2010http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7618/in-love-with-socialized-medicine(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA was adamant: His health-care overhaul would not put Americans on the road to British-style, government-run medicine. Speaking to the American Medical Association last June, the president dismissed as "scare tactics and fear-mongering" all talk of "socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors." A few weeks later he reiterated the message: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care."But if Obama is as firmly opposed to a government-ruled health sector as he claims, why has he nominated as administrator of Medicare and Medicaid -- far and away the nation's largest health-insurance programs, covering one out of every three Americans at a cost of nearly $1 trillion -- a man who openly adores Britain's socialized health care?

"I am romantic about the National Health Service," Dr. Donald Berwick, the president's pick for director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a British audience in 2008. "I love it." Not only does he love the NHS, he extols it as "an example for the whole world -- an example ... that the United States needs now."From all accounts, Berwick, a pediatrician, is respected by his peers. He is the founder of the Cambridge-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and an expert on making patient care safer and more efficient. Among his supporters are Bill Frist, a physician and former US Senate majority leader, and several previous directors of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.But if Berwick's credentials cannot be doubted, neither can his ideological commitment to centralized state power over health care, or his disdain for the ability of markets and competition to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical services.He has publicly saluted Britain's socialized National Health Service for rejecting the "immoral" American system and "the darkness of private enterprise." He declares that "the Holy Grail of universal coverage" cannot be achieved with consumer-centered health care, but only through "collective action overriding some individual self-interest."And he embraces health-care rationing. "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care," he said in a 2009 interview, "the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that "limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage." Accordingly, he praises the NHS for "making tough choices" about the care it administers -- unlike the American system, in which the supply of medical care is not artificially restricted. "Here, you choose a harder path," he said in Britain two years ago. "You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them."But those who have to live with the NHS and its "bottlenecks" don't always find them quite so admirable. For months, the British press has been reporting horror stories about the realities of government-run health care. Some recent headlines give a sense of the coverage:"Overstretched maternity units mean mothers face a 100-mile journey to have baby.""Hundreds of patients died needlessly at NHS hospital due to appalling care.""Cash-strapped NHS trust introduces rationing for common children's conditions."

"Standard of care in some wards 'would shame a third world country.'""Stafford Hospital caused 'unimaginable suffering.'"No one would deny that America's health care system is flawed in many ways. But when it comes to the standard that matters most -- the quality of health care provided -- our haphazard, expensive, insurance-based system towers above the NHS."In Britain 36 per cent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery," wrote journalist James Bartholomew in The Spectator. "In the US, a mere 5 per cent do." By one metric after another -- cancer survival rates, performance of diagnostic tests, availability of CT and MRI scanners, consultation with specialists -- US health care is superior. "British state-run healthcare," Bartholomew concluded, "is so amazingly, achingly, miserably, and mortally incompetent."That's the system that leaves Berwick feeling "romantic" -- the system he proclaims an "example" for the United States. And Obama wants him to run Medicare and Medicaid? Let us hope at least 51 senators say no.“IN LOVE WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINEBY JEFF JACOBYTHE BOSTON GLOBEJUNE 16, 2010http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7618/in-love-with-socialized-medicine(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

He is not eligible to bePresident of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligiblebecause he was not born ofTWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSAT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTHas required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth. Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizenof Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United Statescitizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htmAlso, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can becorrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid._

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

Post a Comment

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com